Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel sources thread

[Greg KH]

Sorry for the lag, was at the Linux kernel summit and now OLS, so email
access is spotty...

On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 01:32:18AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:06:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote:
> | > The 2.6.x patchset is a *lot* cleaner. I'm not the only dev who
> | > still has strong objections to at least one of the patches that's
> | > included in there, however.
> |
> | Which one, supermount?
>
> No, supermount is just pointless, since we've got udev and dev.d

Is this really true?  If so, great, I'll drop it right now.  I really
don't know what supermount is used for these days...

> The objectionable patch is bootsplash. Chances are everyone's
> already heard wesolows' rant about this, and I agree with everything he
> says, so I won't repeat it here.

Um, where would this rant be?  Yes, the older code was not nice.  But
look at it now.  It's self contained, and is easily disabled with no
side affects (and if there are any, please file bugs and we will fix
them.)

And the next-gen bootsplash code rocks.  It's done properly, and I'm
going to be working on getting it into the mainline kernel tree.  Spock
has done a kick-ass job on this.

> (Incidentally, until recently bootsplash would change the fb code even
> when it was disabled, and it screwed thing up enough that I had to
> revert the patch.)

That is fixed, so this issue is now mute.

> | As of right now, there are only 4 "features" added to the g-d-s kernel
> | package, all for very good reason.
>
> Is one of those reasons "looking pretty at the expense of hiding the
> messages which show why your keyboard isn't working"? :)

For some reason people like pretty things :)

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list